Limited Rules
First Round: No arguments
Last Round: No new arguments
Try to limit how many of your points you will include in one round so more people will be likely to read it. Add new arguments to each round along with refutations to previous posts. Thanks.

Overall Outline
My general arguments (along with needed refutations) for each round will mostly likely cover the following
Round 2: What is race and why is it important to immigration and the white majority (biologically and sociologically)
Round 3: Europeans compared to other major groups (Negroids, Mestizos, Muslims from NA and ME, and Asians) on key factors
Round 4: History of European Civilization, solutions, and other topics that I left out in previous rounds that I think are needed
*Though I don't think saying I have the burden of proof is a giant problem, I will just state that I do not agree for these quick reasons: I think any position, even mainstream or current policy requires justification and evaluation of its consequences and how it relates to certain values. Also, I would state that advocating/defending a major change in racial demographics and its effects warrants justification.*

Genetic aspects of Race
Race is a colloqiaul taxonomy that correlates heavily with genotypic group differences caused by differences in genetic lineages (1). Modern Medicine generally even recognizes that different races on average have different responses to drugs and are not equally susceptible to diseases (2). The races on aggregate differ in brain size, mutation rates, menstrual cycles, hormone levels, and other areas (3). For instance, Negroids have 500 million less neurons than Europoids. This means the Negriod brain would need to be more efficient with it neurons than the Europoid brain to produce an equal result (4). Race and IQ is largely genetic, with Europoids having an average IQ of 100, Negroids (in the US whom are more mixed with whites) 85, Sub Saharan Africans 67, Mestizos (Latinos) 90, South Asians and North Africans (largely Arab) 84, NorthEast Asians 105 etc (5). IQ has a higher correlation with income level than sociology-economic status (6). This shows that the growth of non white groups, specifically South Asians/North Africans, Mestizos, and Africans will lower the average IQ of the countries in the Western World and increase poverty.

Sociological aspects of Diversity
The largest research study done on the effects of diversity was conducted by the Harvard Professor of Political Science, Robert Putnam (7). He found that the greater racial, ethnic, linguistic, cultural, religious and other forms of diversity there were, "the fewer people vote and the less they volunteer, the less they give to charity and work on community projects. In the most diverse communities, neighbors trust one another about half as much as they do in the most homogenous settings." Studies have also been done that the White brain response negatively to nonwhite features such as nose shape, lip size, and skin tone etc (8). Additional studies have been done that people generally tend to be happier with an ethnic identity (9). There is less domestic violence among similar racial couples than diverse racial marriages and mixed race children are more likely to experience abuse (10). Consequentially, well over a majority of armed conflicts (between and mostly within states) since World War II have been ethnically based (11). These facts show that diversity is a sociological weakness and multicultural ideology as well as results will make whites less happy as they become less of a majority, eventually to a decreasing minority. This will also increase the chance of internal armed ethnic conflicts.

The Current Projection of Demographics in the West
Western Europe, United States, Canada, and other majority traditional white nations are projected to have their host white populations be minorities as earlier as 2042 and as late as 2100 according to current Census projections (12). During the next round I will compare Europeans to the main racial, political, and religious groups they will be demographically displaced by if current trends continue.

The resolution calls for two things, a recognition of a white majority as something intrinsically good, and a justification for the white majority to be legally protected. Governments ought only to act if it is the best interest of the majority of their citizens; so my opponents burden is two-fold, he must justify legal recognition and protection for the white majority, and explain how any adverse effects of his plan would be outweighed. Since he has yet to explain how these nations will protect their majorities, he has failed to uphold his burden and thus already lost the debate unless he can explain in later rounds why we should protect it.

My Case:

Short and simple, I would presume that "preserving" a European majority would indicate restricted immigration at best, and forced deportation at worst. Both of those are disasterous. To be sure, the Western world gets an incredible amount of knowledge and talent from immigrants fleeing the poverty and destitution of their homelands. In the U.S. alone, an incredible 38% of scientists and engineers are immigrants[1], the immigrant labor force is needed in our economy. I could argue all day that protectionism is nonsense, racial protectionism even more so, but I've decided not to. Instead I offer a counterplan: Change immigration to allow only the highly skilled in. This captures MY offense (the talent we recieve from immigrants) while also capturing his, since fewer immigrants would arrive and the white majority would be preserved, without the disadvantage of closing the door on a talented and intelligent individual because they have too much melanin in their skin.

Refutation:

R1: Genetic aspects of race

--> This entire argument fails to meet the criteria specified in my framework.

--> This argument is further weakened when we consider the implications of impementing restricted immigration/deportation by taking out a viable and relied upon part of the labor force.

--> Turn: Whites are safer allowing immigrants in. 1. Immigrants are momumentally beneficially for our economies, thus leading to more White Hegemony and the white race being preserved even more and 2. Racial protectionism harms the image of whites worldwide. In places like the United States, such ideas of White protectionism would lead to race riots leading to white deaths and decreased U.S. hegemony hence decrease White hegemony/power.

--> Counterplan: Self segregation: already in the U.S. the phenomenom of "white flight" has led to whites and blacks inhabiting differnet areas, and seperation among the races has increased since the 1980's[2]. The white race will be preserved regardless, so why bother to ruin the economy for minimal gain?--> The very idea is unprincipled. Skin tone is arbitary, and you cannot exclude groups based off arbitary factors.

--> Turn: The economy needs cheap laborers and useful idiots, which my opponents evidence suggests will not be as common among whites.

--> Turn: Obama. The resolution implys the present tense, so steps ought to be taken immediately. This would mean, to preserve white hegemony, we would likely have to kick Obama out of office. To kick someone out of office due to their melanin levels takes away a lot of the legitimacy of the office of the presidency, which leads to future presidents not being effective leaders.

--> Turn: NOT allowing immigrants would lead to poverty, because there are less people to do manual labor.

--> Turn: Most poverty found from immigration is the immigrants being poor because they were exploited by whites. My opponent obviously wants us to place white interests first, so there you go, poverty impact flows Con.

--> No impact argued, who cares?

R2: Sociology

--> Sociology is a science, and scientific facts are constantly debated. My opponent must show his arguments to be objective scientific facts supported by most if not all scientists (like the Earth is spherical for example) or his examples carry no weight. I can always just argue against them.

--> Turn: Less voters= good. People are irrational, its best for only the most informed to vote.

--> Turn: If whites are not attracted to nonwhite features, than they will generally not engage in miscegenation and the white race will be preserved.

--> Turn: The reason people in "diverse" communities generally trust eachother less is because immigrant neighborhoods are often more impoverished. Poverty up with less immigration.

--> The fact that most Post-WWII wars involved Whites attacking non-whites isn't because of race war as my opponent wants you to believe, its from U.S. and NATO hegemony in post-WWII, and because the major activity of the soviet union was in areas where it could assert its influence (IE Asia). People were CLEARLY much more racist in the Pre-WWII era.

As I stated in my outline I will now compare the major racial demographic groups that are currently projected to replace Europeans on key factors, largely in reference to Europoids.
American Demographics: Whites 65%, Mestizos 16%, Blacks 12%, Asians 4.5%. etc (13)

"The Mestizo Menace"
-Latinos are the largest group of both legal and illegal immigrants to the US. Mexicans are the largest Hispanic group coming to the US and alone are a majority of the legal and illegal immigrants (14).
-Mestizos are the most likely racial demographic group to drop out of high school, be on a form of welfare, and be in a criminal gang. Hispanics are twice as likely as whites to have "illegitimate" children, three times as likely to not have medical insurance, three times as likely to have diseases such as Aids as well as tuberculosis, and only have roughly 1/10 of the net-wealth of whites per capita (15).
-The children and/or grandchildren of Mestizo immigrants actually go BACKWARDS in the areas of teen parenthood, violent crime (3-5 times more likely to commit violent crime than whites), high school drop out rates, and being in a gang.
-Hispanics are twice as likely as whites to have "illegitimate" children, three times as likely to not have medical insurance, three times as likely to have diseases such as Aids as well as tuberculosis, and only have roughly 1/10 of the net-wealth of whites per capita (15, 16).
- In terms of Ideology and Identity: 58% of Mexican US CITIZENS believe the US SouthWest belongs to Mexico, 75% of Mestizo US CITIZENS identify as Hispanic/Latino or another Latin American nationality over American. High ranking Mexican-Democratic Officials (Speaker of the CA State Assembly, State Senators, State Party chairmen, etc) have supported the idea of an all Latino SouthWest/Aztlan with numerous colleges and high-schools having their own political chapters (17, 18, 19).

"The Brutality of Blacks"
-Blacks are the second largest minority demographic group in the US, following Hispanics. Negroids have the third fastest growth rate of the major demographic groups in relation to the % of the population in the US after Mestizos and Mongoloids. Black Africans make up a large group of immigrants to Europe after the Greater Middle Eastern Arabs, Turks etc (20).
-Blacks are the most likely demographic group to commit violent crime. Blacks are 7-10 times more likely to commit violent crime than Europeans and more heavily dominate the areas of murder, rape, and robbery in the violent crime area. They are still much more likely to commit violent crime even when poverty, unemployment, and high school dropout rates are controlled for. Blacks, like Hispanics, are more likely to commit a "hate crime" than whites (21).
-Blacks are roughly twice as likely to be unemployed compared to Whites, are the second most likely demographic to use a form of welfare, the second most likely demographic to drop out of high school, are much less likely to get a college degree, are the most likely demographic to have Aids, and are far more likely to be in poverty (22, 23, 24, 25, 26).
-Additionally, 67% of blacks want monetary reparations for slavery compared to 4% of whites (27).

"The Theocratic Throwbacks"
-Muslims from the Greater Middle East (Middle East, North Africa, Pakistan etc.) are the largest religious immigrant group to Europe with some of the largest ethnicities being Arabs, Turks, Punjabis, Pashtuns etc (28).
-40% of Muslims in Britain (highest rates are among Muslim youth) want Islamic Shariah Law in the United Kingdom, a third believe the West is immoral and Muslims should seek to bring it to an end, and 80% consider themselves Muslims first and British second (29, 30, 31).
-The large North African Muslim presence in Paris, France has routinely illegally shuts down streets in Paris to pray. This made it practically impossible for the French to leave and go to their homes during this times (32).
-In Germany, Turks notoriously have a record of not assimilating and the Prime Minister of Turkey has encouraged non-assimilation (33).
-Muslim immigrants from the Middle East and North Africa have increased the rape rate in Scandinavian by about 500% (34)
-Muslims are 4-10 times as likely to use a form of welfare than native Europeans (35).

"The Average Asians"
-North East Asians have perhaps some of the best characteristics of any group of current immigrants. They are less likely to commit violent crime than whites, have higher average IQs than Europeans, and on average do better educational attainment wise.
-While this is the case, they still contribute to the isolation, mistrust, and unhappiness that comes from multiculturalism. While they are not an economic burden as well as less of a political burden than other ethnic and racial groups they are a sociological burden to the white majority.
-North East Asians have far fewer "geniuses" than Europeans. Their IQ bell curve, while having a higher average does not extend nearly as far as Europeans, whom have outlier scores well below and well above the extensions of the Asian bell curve. North East Asians are far more likely to be closer to the their average bell curve than Europeans whom have a more diverse IQ spread. Their "breeding" with Europeans, in terms of IQ would likely increase the lower IQ area of whites as well as decrease the higher IQ end in relation to the bell curve of IQ leading to fewer more intelligent and less intelligent people (36).

In my next section I will continue to follow the outline and will respond to the criticisms made*Character Limits stop that for now*

I've already won this debate, because my opponent has droped (and therefore conceded to) my immigration by education counterlan which, I repeat, captures his offense of preserving the White race while also capturing the inteligence and skill we gain from immigrants. He's given no impact large enough to outweigh the positive economic effects of educated immigration.

I'll refute my opponents White supremacist rhetoric anyway. To be sure, he brings about an astounding number of correlation causation fallacies. In order to prove causation three things are needed: first, the correlation must exist, secondly a logical casual link must be established, and third data proving that one variable (IE gangs) goes down soley because of aother variable (IE hispanics). You can see that my opponent has failed to do 2/3rds of this--he doesn't in any logical way explain why someones melanin levels effect their cognition and inclination towards violence. Secondly, his round three argument only addresses the United States--until he gives statistics from the other Western Countries the resolution hasn't yet been fully proven--even if for some reason you buy his fallacious U.S. specific reasoning.

I could just as easily nit pick at statistics to make a case for white people being bad. Whites commit a disproptionate amount of hate crimes[1], and white women are more likely to get breast cancer[2] (thus costing the economy to take care of them). These are just stats that I've found in literally two minutes of research so no doubt I could commit more correlation causation fallacies if I put my mind to it. The fact that my opponent can only find a handful of reasons why the other races are bad in 3 days is unimpressive. This is not to imply that I think whites are bad, it merely shows the flaws in my opponents reasoning.

Recall also that he still has not explained what these "steps" would even be. He hasnt shown you what happens when you affirm, so you cannot.

The Mestizo Menace

--> Saying that we should exclude Mestizos simply because they have a low education rate isn't an argument. Certainly the same could be said about many well established groups in the U.S. upon their initial arrival like the Irish. Besides, his statistic makes no distinction between first and second generation immigrants. Of course immigrants from poor countries with uneducated parents are less likely to excel in academics.

--> His disease statistics have nothing to do with Mestizos as a race, they could be explained by other factors (like poverty).

--> Turn: We need low skilled laborers to do the jobs white americans are too stuck up to do.

--> His most significant stat, the one of how second or third generation immigrants are violent is unsourced and thus unwarranted.

--> That most Hispanics don't believe in the Right of Conquest is insignificant, unless they plan on making an insurgency to return to Mexico their siezed territory (not happening) there is no impact. The fact that they identify as hispanic first goes against my opponents reasoning--if he doesnt want the races to interbreed, as I presume he doesnt, then that is in his world preferable. They're less likely to marry an American and thus "destory their bloodline", as the white nationalists say.

--> I agree that no race should have political chapters, but that is neither here now there. So what if a few prominant meszitos want these things? How many prominent whites have advocated absurd things?

Brutality of Blacks

--> Blacks statistically commit more crime, that's an objective fact. What is not established is why. My opponent gives no logic to support the idea that this rise in crime is because they are black. Poverty explains this better. Unless he can cite something inherent in Blacks that leads to these crimes, his argument falls. I can just as easily cite influencial and successful blacks[3][4].

--> Again, it sucks that blacks live off welfare a lot. It's a shame that there's nothing we can do about it...oh wait, we can just abolish welfare.

--> Who cares if negroes want reperations for slavery? They simply are not going to get it. Besides, this minor disagreement is not justification to exclude them.

--> He still hasnt explained what "steps" will be taken to solve these racial "problems". Very few blacks immigrate to the U.S., and most of thosre are intelligent and educated.

Muslims

--> I agree that Sharia law should not be implemented in the Western World. Do you know how we keep that from happening? By not implementing it.

--> I think that homosexuality is immoral, by my opponents logic I should not be allowed in San Fransisco.

--> France shuts down streets to allow Muslims to pray, cool. They shouldn't do that. No need to exclude Muslims just because the city officials of Paris are too spineless to say no to anyone. Do you know why my opponent hasn't cited any other exampes? Because it doesn't happen elsewhere.

--> No evidence on the " isolation, mistrust, and unhappiness that comes from multiculturalism.", because it doesnt happen. Even if it did, discriminating against Asians because Whites aren;t comfortable around them is just caving into bigotry.

--> Asians may have less geniuses, but they also have higher IQ's on balance.

Con argued that I had the burden of proof because I wanted a change in policy while now he is advocating changing immigration policy as well to prolong the white majority (I thought he was supposed to argue against?). He also ignored his burden of proof/lacked sources in defending much of his arguments/objections. The white majority is not intrinsically good, just like many important aspects of life to people. It is subjective or intersubjective because it is dependent on human's perception/values. That does not make the impact of given policies diminish or its adverse effects decrease. In terms of policy I will answer in this round even though it is a different topic then "Should Western Countries actively seek".

Re: My Case

The vast majority of immigrants to the United States are not scientists. For the low skilled and high skilled labor that is believed to be needed that currently cannot be provided by natives with retraining or increased education the foreigners can be given non-permanent worker visas instead of citizenship so they can still be providing services to the US economy without being eligible to vote, be on welfare, etc and can more easily be deported. I could "go on all day" about how more nonwhites weakens US conservatism since it is dominated by whites, US liberalism (non whites are more likely to be socially conservative), Libertarianism/Anarchism (90% are white), and increases third world nationalist ideologues as it is already doing now (37, 38, 39). Con keeps repeating the lie that race differences are only melanin amounts in skin when I have already explained and posted some of the multiple differences (see above sources 1-5). Skin tone is not the only or even the most important aspect of race as has already been outlined (5-11 & R3).

RE: R1:

Only Western Nations since the end of WWII allow mass migration. No other nations or groups of nations (Japan, China, India, etc) besides white nations allow the mass importation of foreign people to demographically replace their host populations. Our policy would in that sense would have little difference but even still be more liberal than theirs. The white race and its majority is being deluded not strengthened by immigration. Any race riots and white deaths would likely be minimal in the different ways one could go about it.

2. Laws at the Federal level and in the manner similar to what was passed in AZ and AL (but applying to most non Europids) where most illegals deported on their own (40). Operation Wetback in 1950 had a similar effect with the few that chose to remain largely being deported (41).

3. Voluntary paid repatriation at first and then forced repatriation later.

4. A window to leave, sell property, and collect a certain amount to repatriate where if one overstays/riots they will lose the last two options.

White flight is another example of how important race is sociologically. Seceding portions of the country to non whites in areas that whites built because whites DO NOT on average want to live where they are a minority is a terrible policy. It means whites built up areas and then feel invaded and forced to leave because of how the texture of life changes for the worse. The result is the same as an invasion that white Americans have fought and died in numerous wars to not allow while post 1950s immigration policies are having the same consequence. Asians intermixing with whites would lessen the amount of geniuses and lower IQ people, thereby negatively affecting the division of labor that he champions (and I do too). Define "exploitation" (which usually comes from Marx's pre economic utility Labor Theory of Value).

RE:R2

Sociology is not a hard science but a social science so it is not as fully agreed upon as many areas of science. Con's attempt to discredit the largest sample size done by far on diversity is laughable while not providing a counter study. The decrease in votes doesn't just affect the least informed voters and poverty is among other items that were CONTROLLED for in the Putnam study so his non sourced assumption is incorrect (42). Showing that the white brain negatively reacts to nonwhite features was to show less white happiness with the presence of more nonwhites, not anything to do with interbreeding. The vast majority of external and internal conflicts have NOT been caused by the West but have mostly orientated in third world countries that were ethnically based (see above source 11, pg. 95, last paragraph).

RE:R3

Con continues his "shotgun style of argumentation" of responses that largely result from him not looking at/ignoring the information and controls that were conducted for the relevant information given as well as him giving silly comparisons. Statistics were given from Western Europe, Canada, and the US in the combined previous rounds. The problems of Hispanics in the previous generations were sourced and listed (16). Whites DO NOT commit a disproportionate amount of hate crimes. The FBI study he links lumps Hispanics and Arabs in with whites in comparison to blacks and others. If ones breaks down the data as my study has shown whites are least likely out of Hispanics and blacks to commit a hate crime (21, first source). The idea that lower average IQs/less geniuses, higher levels of poverty, lower educational achievement, higher rates of unemployment, increased non-white racial nationalism and religious totalitarianism etc. as a result of increased nonwhite immigration as just a handful problems or unimportant is beyond ridiculous. It is equally as silly that we can just get rid of all forms of welfare currently and with the ideologies of the growing racial minorities. As is his dismissal of majority treason within the Mexican ranks and his response to the growing Islamic demographic wanting Sharia as "we just won't implement it" inspite of whites becoming a minority in Western Europe by 2100 if current trends continue. There are already no go areas for whites and non Muslims (43). Blacks commit more violent crime wherever they are (44). Again, poverty as well as OTHER factors was controlled for in terms of violent crime (21, 1st, page 11-12). Race is a bigger indicator of violent crime than poverty. Individual exceptions do not change aggregate consequences of policy. Additionally, according to his own source about cancer, "blacks continue to suffer the greatest burden for each of the most common types of cancer" (his source R3, source 2, #4). Asians, once again will lower the amount of geniuses in the Western World and harm the division of labor if they were to ever heavily interbreed with whites because of their bell curve extensions. They have a negative effect on the happiness of whites because of the forms of diversity they bring as shown in the Putnam study. NorthEast Asians are also experiencing decreasing overall numbers (they do not have mass migration so % of their nation's pop. size doesn't chance much) in the long run because of decreased birthrates. SouthEast Asians whom do not have some of the benefits of NorthEast Asians are growing.

Pro still hasn't shown why White People are good. I could agree that Blacks, Mexicans, Jews, Asians, and Indians are all bad and filthy, but he hasn't shown me why whites are better so he's lost; there's no reason to protect a group of people that isn't inherently better. Pro even concedes that "The white majority is not intrinsically good". He argues that its value is "intersubjective because it is dependent on human's perception/values." So basically he's admitting that his view is based off of subjective "values" (AKA Racism)...umm vote Con?

His sole response to my case is the advocation of a non-permenant worker visa, but he hasn't argued the logistics of this. That is to say, you can't affirm because he hasn't told you what happens if you affirm. I have the status quo, and I have the simple counterplan of immigration restriction. He hasnt disputed the fact that I capture his offense (if it could be called that) while keeping my own. Dropping this = I win. He says that the both conservativism AND liberalism AND Libretarianism AND Anrachism are harmed by nonwhites, with no explanation as to how other than nonwhites usually adhere to " third world nationalist ideologues" with the citation that nonwhites usually vote democrat. Then links a source showing that political ideology is almost even between Hispanics and whites[1]. Wow, I dont know if he's trying to help his case or hurt it here, but he certainly hasnt given you any reason to vote for him.

He argues: "Only Western Nations since the end of WWII allow mass migration. No other nations or groups of nations (Japan, China, India, etc) besides white nations allow the mass importation of foreign people to demographically replace their host populations. " The problem with this argument is that the only nation in which the "host" (invading) population is in danger of being replaced is the USA. The resolution is plural, so a US specific argument can't be advanced. There's literally 0 chance of whites becoming a minority in any other "western" country any time in the forseeable future. The White population of the US is not a host population, its a fellow invading population. He hasnt shown why whites should have preferred moral status. Moreover, just because other nations (populated by non whites no less) have restricted immigration is no reason for white nations to do so..hes saying its not ok for the West to gain an incredible amount of talent and labor because China doesnt do so.

He finally offers steps as to what we actually will do to stop these nonwhites, but he hasnt fleshed them out so you cant vote for such a drastic status quo change based off this. I'll refute them anyway.

1. Making a seperate area for non whites will only stir up resentment and anger, and he still hasnt explained why seperation is good..

2. Implementating racist laws will result in them being struck down by the Supreme court. Turn: This step makes his plan less likely to succeed.

3. He's advocating paying laborers (taking money out of US economy) to go home. Less labor= less production = economically bad. Pumping money out of US= economically bad.

He argues that the white flight proves the sociological factor of race, but if the races arent mixing than any negative sociological effects wont be felt, while the positive economic effects will. He says that inter racial marriage is bad. First, theres no warrant behind this, and secondly it rarely happens so it isnt even an issue. Again, he hasnt shown whites to be morally superior.

He keeps advocating that diversity is bad, but remember, he hasnt logically argued why just linked some sources. First you're supposed to make arguments, not let sources do it for you and secondly (as you learn when you debate) there is evidence saying practically EVERYTHING. There are certainly Pro-diversity cards, I just choose not to link them because I know there is literally 0 chance of anyone reading them. Clashes over evidence always end in a clash of logic, so Pro needs to say logically why whites are going to be upset when they see nonwhites, how his steps will not make this worse (most racial based laws heighten racial tension), and explain why this racism is somethin we ought to protect! He makes the absurd argument that whites will be "less happy" around non whites because they dont like their facial features, but didnt refute my Turn on the argument...

He FINALLY makes a response to my anti white arguments, by saying that my study " lumps Hispanics and Arabs in with whites". K. Too bad he hasnt even defined "white" nthroughout this debate. It was a matter of principle anyway, there is obviously evidence showing whites to be bad; so he needs to show why whites are inherently superior--he hasnt. All he does is continually commit correlation causation fallacies to support his racial views. He says that Asians have less geniuses, but he never disputes that they're also more intelligent on average and hasnt shown why a handful of genuises outweighs a massive IQ gain in the general population.

Extensions

Pro has dropped a lot of my arguments, lets extend them:

--> Extend: Case turn, he's ignored my educated immigration counterplan. Recall that this would still be harming the white majority by allowing nonwhites in and thus flows Con.--> Extend my framework, he hasnt shown how any adverse affects of his plan will be outweighed, and he made no attack on this burden. Thus his arguments cant even be considered.

--> Extend: That he has to justify legal protection for the white majority. Even if he proves its good, he needs to justify legal protection and he hasnt even tried to.

--> Extend: The economical advantages from immigration, he hasnt disputed them.--> Extend: Obama turn. Delegitimizes the office of the president to discriminate against him.

--> Extend: That in ALL of Pros arguments he's proven correlation, not causation.

In the final round I would like to sum up the vast amount of reasons for Western countries to keep their demographic majorities.

Continuing the suicidal and needless policy of our current immigration groups to various Western countries will lower average IQs as high as 30 points, lower the amount of geniuses(therefore hurting the division of labor), increase poverty by at least double, increase unemployment by up to 2 fold, increase violent crime as high as 1,000%, increase gang activity by as large as 1,900%, decrease happiness of all racial groups especially whites, decrease community cohesion as well as social capital, decrease traditional Western ideologies while increasing third world nationalist ideologies (such as Aztlan and Islamic Caliphate states), increase dropout rates for primary/high school, lower higher educational achievement, increase treason, increase single parenting by more than double, triple the rate of infectious diseases such as Aids, increase hate crimes, quadruple welfare dependency, increase rape by 500%, and increase the likelihood of internal violent armed conflict between groups (over 50% since 1945 were ethnic based). My opponent makes numerous assumptions about why this is the case without sourcing and without explaining what the possible rough solutions would be (with citations) as well as why it is in the interest of Western countries to bring them in and have to do this. He has talked quite a lot about poverty being the main cause when all of my major studies control for it. Yet he just ignores/doesn't read them and suggests this is the MAIN indicator without citation. The Putnam study that had the largest sample size ever done on diversity and its sociological implications CONTROLS for poverty among other factors. On violent crime, factors such as high school dropout rates, unemployment, and yes POVERTY were controlled for. The highest indicator of violent crime is the amount of blacks/Hispanics in a state/dc area at .81 not the other factors that are in the .30s. I gave studies and other citations about how for instance black violent crime is disproportionality higher all over different parts of the Western World.

Additionally Con has a hard time understanding why subjective or intersubjective values is of prime importance. This information in relation to current mass immigration is coming from and is causing damage to actual people. Subjective and intersubjective value just means dependent on humans (morality, economics, etc). Con has even argued in the beginning to be for keeping the white majority. That is my position. If one is won over or defends the main position of one’s opposition that is, at the very least, conceding a lot of the debate. The worker visas can be worked multiple ways. The main point is that they just allow for the few economic benefits that are received from some foreign groups/individual to not come with the heavy problems such as them being able to vote, be on welfare, not be deported for terrible activity etc. The difference between Hispanics and whites on social liberalism was in the double digits. So I don't see why he thinks there is no difference. The third world ideologies I linked were from the two largest groups that come to the West, Aztlan (all Latino SouthWest) as well as Islamic law/end the west along with their respective percentages. Con further shows his ignorance in respect to what a nation is and how it is not just simply a geographic area. The United States did no exist until the European civilizations that turned into the British thirteen colonies came about. The United States governmental institutions, legal codes, societal norms, common language etc were created by Europeans. Amerindian societies were not in any way the United States.

He then continues to show more ignorance of even the basics concerning the demographics of the West. In the very first round I linked how as early as 2042 and as late as 2100 Western Europe, US, Canada, etc, whites will be a minority in those areas on current trends. New Zealand, US, and Canada will be some of, if not the first Western nations to go minority white. He also continues to refer to the economic benefits of immigration. However, his only source deals with how involved they are in the workforce (mostly because of their increase in the population) without the net average that includes the economic costs. If one factors that in, on aggregate, they are a net loss (45). Regarding geniuses 97% of all major scientific figures from 800BC-1950 have come from the West (46). In the end my opponent continues to make claims with little to no evidence or citation and continues to repeat arguments I have already addressed.

If one believes that indicators, no matter how high of an indicator they are as well as their effects are not that important and subjective/intersubjective values shouldn’t be prime considerations with societal policy than I would vote Con. If one agrees that these factors are important and less violent crime, high IQs, less poverty, more societal and individual happiness, etc is important please vote Pro.

For my final round, I'll go over what my opponent was obligated to do in order to affirm the resolution, and how he has failed to do so.

All the way back in my round 2, I put the burden on my opponent not only to prove that a white majority is good andworthy of legal recognition, but also to create a plan to preserve the White majority while accounting for it's obvious adverse effects. He conceded to that burden by way of dropping it. So has he proven this? Not at all. His entire case seemed to rely on white supremacist rhetoric, while at the same time never officially advocating white supremacy...coming off this debate, assuming you buy all his arguments (you shouldn't, as they're all correlation-causation fallacies), you have a plethora of reasons that the other races are bad, but no analysis on whites at all. How can we deem that whites, as a group, are worthy of state recognition and protection if we don't even get out of the debate what whites are actually like, what they actually contribute, ect? The fact is, we can't. For this reason, the resolution is already negated. My Opponents argument can essentially be expressed in this [broken] syllogism:

P1: Minorities are badC: We need to preserve the white majority

While P1 is obviously unwarranted, in order for the argument to be even valid (much less sound), another premise IE whites are good/better than minorities must be established, a feat he's failed to do. His argument bears much more similarities to propaganda than anything else (by way of leaving out critical details in order to further a perception), but I digress.

His burden of presenting a plan has been totally unmet. He does make some vague references towards sending the minorities to their mother countries with paid compensation, but he has neither responded to my attacks on his plan nor fleshed it out in any meaningful way. I've been in this debate for 4 rounds, and I still dont know what would happen (theoretically of course) if we affirmed. He made no response to my turn that placing white interests above minority ones would lead to race riots that would harm white hegemony, so you can extend that I suppose.

Moreover, he's failed to even define white! He criticized one of my studies because it ".. lumps Hispanics and Arabs in with whites in comparison to blacks and others." but has given NO definition of white himself! This is extremely significant, because you cannot vote to protect a group of people if you do not even know who they are. Pro hasn't shown you who these white people are that we must protect and defend at the expense of others, so there's obviously no reason to vote for him.

Another significant point of contention is my counterplan, virtually untouched throughout the entire debate. Pro does, at the end (finally, and in his last round so I argue it shouldn't be accepted anyway) that "Con has even argued in the beginning to be for keeping the white majority." This is false, because any action that reduces the white majority in any way, IE letting educated non-whites in, is not an act of preservation, it is an act that weakens the white majority. You can thus see that the offense of having educated minorities is uniquely mine, so you can extend the evidence showing that 38% of scientists and engineers are immigrants. If you think that white race should be preserved, you'll favor educated immigration because it is beneficial to the countries in which white people live. My opponent does not even attempt to explain how whites will do the jobs that illegals and low wage immigrants currently do, so extend the economic harms coming off of affirmation.

Now, my opponent does give a remarkable number of studies about how minorities are bad, but responds to very few of my attacks on those same studies. Indeed, nowhere does he even attempt to explain any causation what-so-ever. Don't buy that an entire group of people is more inclined to violence/crime without serious justification. The causes of the disparities between crime rates is one of the most intensely debated subjects in academia, so my opponent can't just show a number of statistical facts and attribute all of these facts to one source-the race of the person involved. This is obviously fallacious. Remember that I showed a number of statistical facts leading to the conclusion that whites are bad, and while he does try to refute these facts themselves, he never tries to refute the fallacious logic behind them; because it is precisely the same logic that he himself is using. Further, his only attack on Asians as a race is that they have less geniuses on average. Yet he concedes that they have a widespread higher IQ, and he obviously he values intelligence. So more intelligence is good, and the resolution is negated. Let in the Asians if no one else. He argues that letting in Asians will lower the number of geniuses, but there's no warrant behind this argument. If things are all genetic, as he implies, than the number of geniuses would stay the same in the white population, and possibly increase among the Asian one with an intermingling of white genes. The only study of note my opponent brings up is the putnam study, but he only links us to an article discussing the study, not the study itself so any analysis of its methodolgy is impossible. Thus we have no reason what-so-ever to believe this study, and further despite his assertations that his study "CONTROLS for poverty among other factors. ", searching for the keywords "control" and "poverty" in his source leads to no matches[1], so there's no reason to believe that this covers for those factors.

In his final round, my opponent argues " Con has a hard time understanding why subjective or intersubjective values is of prime importance. ... Subjective and intersubjective value just means dependent on humans (morality, economics, etc)". This is obviously unfair to throw on me, of course I havent responded to the argument that different races have different values, because he hadn't yet made it until his fifth round! This is a violation of his own debate rules, and thus he's already lost; even if, for some absurd reason, you think my opponent has beaten me in this debate you still vote Con because he's broken his own rules.

He argues that minorities bring along "third world ideologies" with no analysis as to why those are inferior to white ideologies, and never proves that those immigrants will bring along their ideologies. He also goes on about social conservatism/liberalism, but makes no response to the pewhispanic card showing that the ideological difference between hispanics and the general population is not statistically significant. He never argued an impact anyway, why should I care if more people are socially liberal?

He finally gives absurd numbers (increase crime 10X, gangs 19X, and IQ -30 points) with literally no warrants at all. He just says that he's right, which obviously makes no sense.

==Voters==

1. Pro has no impacts of substance.

2. Pro doesn't respnd to a vast number of my attacks or turns, refer to my round four for a comprehensive list.

3. Pro never proves causation, he just tells you statistical facts with no analysis what-so-ever.

"Hey caveman, please give, in exact words, Pros definition of "white". Otherwise, you can't vote Pro because you don't even know who white people are."

A definition of 'race', is by consequence, a definition of white. Your objection is so vapid!

"Where did he EVER prove causation, as I asked repeatedly?"

It's obvious you did not read the Putnam study and the controls Pro mentioned. And you can't just assert stuff out of your butt, you need to provide counter studies. (which you did not)

You are also trying to posit unreasonable and inane sets of conditions on Pro to throw away all of the research he linked.

"Sociology is a science, and scientific facts are constantly debated. My opponent must show his arguments to be objective scientific facts supported by most if not all scientists (like the Earth is spherical for example) or his examples carry no weight. I can always just argue against them."

WHAT!?!?!?

The truth or falsity of sociological facts is not 100% contingent on their acceptance by the scientific community. New discoveries and counterhypotheses are made all the time.

And sociology is a soft science.

"2. why did your RFD not address my counterplan, a critical point of contention and one of my key voters?

Sorry, I don't normally complain about RFD's, but yours is just really bad."

Pro acknowledged your "counterplan" with this point IIRC:

"The vast majority of immigrants to the United States are not scientists." and the sentences following.

Pro is for restricted immigration just like you are, just to a much stricter extent.

Anyone reading this, please note, I can not vote and nor did I vote in this debate.

I will discuss why pro's arguments were far superior to con's. Pro made well sourced arguments regarding the consequences of diversity. Con's arguments were based on appeals to intuition, most without sources. It is very easy to make a large amount assertions without providing emprical evidence. It is much harder to provide and defend quality sources. As what can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof, Pro did not have the obligation to responce to a great deal of con's assertions. Con stated that there did not exist a consensus in sociology regarding this topic, so pro should not use sociology studies, which was absurd. If counter-studies exist, use them! With regards to the Putnam's study, the summary stated that the study had controls for poverty along with other factors, Pro pointed that out. If con didn't read the summary, why should anyone trust his dismissal of it?
He also states that Pro didn't not defined white, which is incorrect. He defined Race as a "colloquial taxonomy that correlates heavily with genotypic group differences caused by differences in genetic lineages" His source went into more detail regarding this definition. For these reasons, among others, I believe that Pro clearly won.

Okay, I go con for a few reasons:
1. Out of all the debates (DDO and outside of DDO), this is probably the one where I was most dissapointed with the pro debater. Initially I came in thinking this would be one of the easiest topics for the pro to win, and you let it all get away from you at the third round. You need to make responses to the con's arguments earlier than round four. Otherwise, you get behind and are forced to undercover arguments and drop some alltogether (which is exactly what happened here.) You just conceded too much to really have any comparable offense, even if I were to buy your arguments.
2. Although I don't really get offended at it, a lot of your round three arguments could've come off as, and I'm stating this rather bluntly to just be plain honest with you, highly racist. That's ultimately why I gave con the conduct point because of the racial arguments made by your case, although it didn't factor into how I evaluated the round as a whole. When considering running arguments like that, weigh the pros against the cons and be reasonable. You could get into deep trouble for something like that in other debates.

Other than that, I thought the con did an effective job of sufficiently responding to the arguments pro provided as they came up, and did a good job defending the late responses that, unfortunately, I'm almost forced to give half-weight because of their late arrival. But even then, you were just too far behind to really adequetely respond to EVERY SINGLE ARGUMENT proposed by the con, and a lot of them were game over arguments.

Aside from those minor slip ups, I thought that this was a good debate.